Madras High Court
Prema vs /12 on 17 September, 2025
C.R.P.Nos.4444, 4445, 4446 & 4449 of 2025
DATED: 17-09-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
CRP Nos.4444, 4445, 4446 & 4449 of 2025
and
CMP Nos.22748, 22749, 22752 & 22762 of 2025
1.Prema
W/o.Venkatesan,
Vembuliamman Koil Street, No.65, Orathur Village,
Sendivakkam Post, Madhurantakam Taluk,
Chengalpattu District.
2.Sethuram
S/o.Venkatesan,
Vembuliamman Koil Street, No.65, Orathur Village,
Sendivakkam Post, Madhurantakam Taluk,
Chengalpattu District.
3.Lekhasree
D/o.Venkatesan,
Vembuliamman Koil Street, No.65, Orathur Village,
Sendivakkam Post, Madhurantakam Taluk,
Chengalpattu District.
4.S.Amirtham
W/o.Samynatha,
No.65, Orathur Village, Sendivakkam Post,
Madhurantakam Taluk, Chengalpattu District.
Petitioner(s)/Defendants 2 to 5
in all petitions
Vs
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 08:41:58 pm )
C.R.P.Nos.4444, 4445, 4446 & 4449 of 2025
Kasiammal (Died)
1.M.N.Vedhachalam
S/o.T.Natesan,
South Street, Morapakkam Village,
Madurantakam Taluk and Firka,
Chengalpattu District.
2.S.Malarkodi
W/o.D.Sambantham,
No.36, Thennachalai Veedhi,
Sorapattu Village and Post, Thirakkanur (via),
Pondicherry - 605501.
3.R.Tamilselvi
W/o.Rajendran,
No.19, Jaisind Street, Pazhavanthangal,
Chennai - 600 114.
Respondent(s)/Plaintiff(s)
in all petitions
Prayer in CRP No.4444 of 2025: Civil Revision Petition filed under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal
order dated 01.09.2025 passed in I.A.No.18 of 2025 in O.S.No.250 of
2013 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Madurantakam.
Prayer in CRP No.4445 of 2025: Civil Revision Petition filed under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal
order dated 01.09.2025 passed in I.A.No.20 of 2025 in O.S.No.250 of
2013 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Madurantakam.
Prayer in CRP No.4446 of 2025: Civil Revision Petition filed under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal
2/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 08:41:58 pm )
C.R.P.Nos.4444, 4445, 4446 & 4449 of 2025
order dated 01.09.2025 passed in I.A.No.21 of 2025 in O.S.No.250 of
2013 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Madurantakam.
Prayer in CRP No.4449 of 2025: Civil Revision Petition filed under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal
order dated 01.09.2025 passed in I.A.No.19 of 2025 in O.S.No.250 of
2013 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Madurantakam.
For Petitioner(s)
in all petitions: Mr.R.Ragavendran
For Respondent(s)
in all petitions: Mr.V.B.Thirupathi Kumar
COMMON ORDER
Challenging the order dated 01.09.2025 passed in I.A.No.18, 19 &
20 of 2025 and I.A.No.21 of 2025, respectively, in O.S.No.250 of 2013
on the file of the District Munsif Court, Madurantakam, the revision
petitioners/defendants 2 to 5 have preferred the present civil revision
petitions.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to
as per rankings in the trial Court.
3. The suit is filed to declare the plaintiffs' title to the suit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 08:41:58 pm )
C.R.P.Nos.4444, 4445, 4446 & 4449 of 2025
property and grant consequential decree of permanent injunction; to
declare the alleged power of attorney dated 04.02.2013 alleged to have
been executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the first defendant as null and
void; and to declare the sale deed dated 19.03.2013 executed by the first
defendant in favour of Venkatesan (husband of the second defendant and
father of the third and fourth defendants and son of the fifth defendant)
as null and void.
4. The District Collector, Kancheepuram District and
Tahsildar, Madurantakam, have also been shown as defendants 6 and 7 in
the suit and they were set ex parte, since they have not chosen to appear
before the trial Court. The first defendant also remained absent and
therefore, set ex parte. The defendants 2 to 4 have filed their written
statement and contested the suit. Necessary issues were framed and trial
also commenced.
5. On the side of the plaintiffs, the deceased Kasiammal was
examined as PW1 and Exs.A1 to A34 were marked. On the side of the
defendants, the second defendant examined herself as DW1 and certain
exhibits were marked.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 08:41:58 pm )
C.R.P.Nos.4444, 4445, 4446 & 4449 of 2025
6. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed an application in I.A.No.14 of
2024 in O.S.No.250 of 2013 under Order XVI Rule 1 & 5 CPC to issue
witness summons to J.Nishanthi, working as Sub-Inspector of Police,
Finger Print Expert, to appear and give evidence to the report given in
C.No.68/FPB/Civil/2024 dated 01.07.2024. Upon hearing either side, the
Court below, vide order dated 18.03.2025, allowed the application. The
aforesaid Finger Print Expert viz. J.Nishanthi was examined as CW1 and
the expert opinion was marked as Court document Ex.C1. Thereafter, the
case was posted for arguments. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs
argued the matter on 17.07.2025 and thereafter, posted for defendants'
side arguments. At that stage, the defendants 2 to 5 filed four
interlocutory applications viz. I.A.No.18 of 2025 filed under Section 151
CPC to reopen the defendants' side evidence; I.A.No.19 of 2025 filed
under Order XVIII Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC to recall DW1;
I.A.No.20 of 2025 filed under Order VIII Rule 3(1-A) CPC to receive the
documents; and I.A.No.21 of 2025 filed under Order XVI Rule1 and 6
r/w Section 151 CPC to issue a witness summon to the Tahsildar,
Madurantakam, to produce the documents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 08:41:58 pm )
C.R.P.Nos.4444, 4445, 4446 & 4449 of 2025
7. In those applications, the plaintiffs endorsed as “no
counter”. Therefore, upon hearing the arguments of the defendants, the
Court below, vide order dated 01.09.2025 dismissed all the applications
on the ground that Ex.B4 is equivalent to Ex.A34 online patta no.176
stands in the name of the defendants 2 to 5 and further, the defendants
were given sufficient opportunity for marking their documents. The
Court below, further observed that the applications to mark patta and
summon at the stage of arguments is not necessary, as patta has already
been marked and therefore, the same have been filed only in order to
prolong the case proceedings.
8. Aggrieved over the aforesaid order dated 01.09.2025, the
revision petitioners/defendants 2 to 5 have preferred the present revision
petitions.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the revision
petitioners/defendants 2 to 5 would submit that the Court below failed to
consider the fact that the defendants 2 to 5 have been diligently
defending the suit without any delay or laches and hence, the trial Court
ought to have permitted the revision petitioners/defendants 2 to 5 to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 08:41:58 pm )
C.R.P.Nos.4444, 4445, 4446 & 4449 of 2025
reopen and recall DW1, receive additional documents and issue
summons to Tahsildar, Madurantakam Taluk/sixth defendant, to produce
adangal for the suit property from the year 2013-2025. The Court below
also failed to consider the fact that the respondents/plaintiffs have made
an endorsement “no counter” in all the applications and in absence of any
objections, the trial Court ought to have granted the revision
petitioners/defendants 2 to 5 an opportunity to substantiate their case.
Further, in order to ensure substantiate justice, it is imperative that the
parties are afforded sufficient opportunity to produce all relevant
evidence and documents and by denying such opportunity, the trial Court
has committed serious prejudice to the revision petitioners/defendants 2
to 5. Further, the documents sought to be produced by the revision
petitioners/defendants 2 to 5 pertains to the patta in their favour and
summon issued by the Tahsildar, Madurantakam Taluk/6th defendant and
Revenue Divisional Officer, which are vital documents to establish the
revision petitioners/defendants 2 to 5 right, title, interest and possession
over the suit properties.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents/plaintiffs would submit that after hearing either side, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 08:41:58 pm )
C.R.P.Nos.4444, 4445, 4446 & 4449 of 2025
case has been posted for judgment. Further, he would submit that the
document filed by the revision petitioners/defendants 2 to 5 marked as
Ex.B4 patta stands in their favour, which is also equivalent to Ex.A34
marked on the side of the respondents/plaintiffs. The applications filed
for marking patta and issuance of summons at the stage of arguments is
unnecessary, as the patta has already been marked in the case and
therefore, he seeks dismissal of these petitions.
11. It is seen from the affidavit filed by the first defendant in
I.A.No.18 of 2025 in O.S.No.250 of 2013, wherein, it has been stated
that the suit was posted for arguments on 17.07.2025 and on that day, the
learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs vehemently
argued the matter by stating that the revision petitioners/defendants 2 to
5 are not in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and the
respondents/plaintiffs alone are in possession and enjoyment of the same.
It is also stated that since the date of execution of sale deed dated
19.03.2013, the revision petitioners/defendants 2 to 5 are in joint
possession and enjoyment and the Government has also recognized their
title and possession by granting joint patta in their favour in patta no.176.
12. It is seen from the records that the respondents/plaintiffs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 08:41:58 pm )
C.R.P.Nos.4444, 4445, 4446 & 4449 of 2025
have filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.10282 of 2016 to
cancel the patta, which stands in the name of the revision
petitioners/defendants 2 to 5. It is also seen from the additional written
statement filed by the second defendant, which was adopted by the
defendants 3 to 5, that after the death of Kasiammal/PW1, the
respondents/plaintiffs have no locus standi to defend the case or have
any right or title over the suit property. Since the date of execution of
sale deed dated 19.03.2013, the revision petitioners/defendants 2 to 5
have been in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and
the Government had also recognized their title and possession and
granted joint patta to them under patta no.176.
13. At this juncture, the main grievance of the revision
petitioners/defendants 2 to 5 is that in order to establish their title and
possession over the suit properties, the patta reflecting their names as on
date alone has to be marked in the suit. In order to establish the same,
reopening the case and to call for the documents from the Tahsildar is
very much necessary.
14. It is well settled that the burden of proof lies always on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 08:41:58 pm )
C.R.P.Nos.4444, 4445, 4446 & 4449 of 2025
plaintiffs to establish their case, if at all the onus shifts on the defendants,
the defendant has to prove the case. In the instant case on hand, evidence
has been completed on either side and the case was posted for arguments.
It is also not in dispute that Ex.B4 document is equivalent to Ex.A34
online patta no.176 stands in the name of the revision
petitioners/defendants 2 to 5, which reveals that the revision
petitioners/defendants 2 to 5 have been given sufficient opportunity for
establishing their case.
15. In such view of the matter, there is no reason warrants to
interfere with the order impugned.
Hence, these civil revision petitions are dismissed. The Court
below shall permit the revision petitioners/defendants to put forth their
arguments. Upon hearing the arguments of the revision
petitioners/defendants 2 to 5 and reply arguments, if any, by the
respondents/plaintiffs, the trial Court shall dispose of the suit as
expeditiously as possible. No costs. Connected C.M.Ps. are closed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 08:41:58 pm )
C.R.P.Nos.4444, 4445, 4446 & 4449 of 2025
17-09-2025
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet:Yes;
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
nsd
To
The District Munsif,
Madurantakam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 08:41:58 pm )
C.R.P.Nos.4444, 4445, 4446 & 4449 of 2025
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
nsd
C.R.P.Nos.4444, 4445, 4446 & 4449 of 2025
17.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 08:41:58 pm )
